Hi Vince, On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:22:28AM +1000, Vincent McIntyre wrote: > apt-proxy comes in two flavours - the old shell-based one and a new shiny > python one. The most recent shell-based one is apt-proxy-1.3.7, in t-p-u. > The most recent python-based one is apt-proxy-1.9.28, in unstable.
> Currently, the package is held out because of #304182. However, that is > against the python version, 1.9.28. AFAICT the shell version is fine. > Proposal: allow 1.3.7 into sarge, on the following basis - > * woody has 1.3.0, ie it's used by current users of stable This doesn't deal with questions of possible bit rot (which your tests address to some extent, but not completely). It also doesn't provide a smooth upgrade path for users of sarge==testing who have a no-longer-present version of apt-proxy 1.9 installed on their systems. While support for upgrades within testing are not "release-critical" because there's no release involved, I'd rather that sarge users have apt-proxy show up under "obsolete" than be caught running an unsupported, *newer* version with no indication of trouble; and I feel strongly enough about this to not let 1.3.7 back in via t-p-u. That means that if people want apt-proxy 1.3 in sarge, it should go through unstable with an epoch, possibly kicking 1.9 out to experimental for the duration. > * I don't understand hinting-foo, but it appears it's been hinted in: > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/ajt That was a test hint; nothing below 'finished' is processed by britney. > The package was removed from sarge in November, for some other RC problem. > JoeyH is concerned that there has been so much flux since then that > allowing the shell version back in will cause more problems than it's > worth. Indeed, that's still a concern that I have; I've heard before that apt-proxy works flawlessly for some people, and not at all for others. :/ -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
